The White House postponed an event scheduled for Wednesday afternoon where President Obama was supposed to receive an award for a commitment to transparency due to unspecified “changes to the president’s schedule.”

The award was to be presented by organizers of the Freedom of Information Day conference in conjunction with “Sunshine Week” for the president’s “deep commitment to an open and transparent government—of, by, and for the people.”

The Associated Press reported this week that despite pledges of increased transparency, the Obama administration last year responded to fewer Freedom of Information Act requests than the year before.

In 2010 there were 544,360 requests filed at the 35 largest government agencies. The AP reported that the administration “refused to release any sought-after materials in more than 1-in-3 information requests.”

The Obama administration has developed a reputation for ruthlessly prosecuting whistleblowers for leaks to the press. The heavy-handed approach has prompted concern about a “chilling effect” that could discourage future government transparency.

The Obama administration, reversing course, will revise a Medicare regulation to delete references to end-of-life planning as part of the annual physical examinations covered under the new health care law, administration officials said Tuesday.

The move is an abrupt shift, coming just days after the new policy took effect on Jan. 1.

Many doctors and providers of hospice care had praised the regulation, which listed “advance care planning” as one of the services that could be offered in the “annual wellness visit” for Medicare beneficiaries.

While administration officials cited procedural reasons for changing the rule, it was clear that political concerns were also a factor. The renewed debate over advance care planning threatened to become a distraction to administration officials who were gearing up to defend the health law against attack by the new Republican majority in the House.

Discussing end-of-life issues is a far cry from “death panels”, but it is fair to ask why the government is butting into doctor-patient relationships. And it is also fair to ask why the Obama administration tried to circumvent democracy (specifically Congress) by trying to sneak this through.

This is no way to convince the suspicious that he isn’t up to something more sinister—which suspicion was generated by talk of blue pills instead of red pills and pain killers instead of surgery*.

I’m sorry: that’s not the respect I usually show to the office. Once a post, he gets the ten-hut! salute: President Moron

Then-Senator Barack Obama Characterized Finding Savings In Medicare As “Drastic Cuts” That “Would Mean Fewer Places To Get Care And Less Freedom To Choose Your Own Doctors” And “It Ain’t Right.” THEN-SEN. BARACK OBAMA: “Senator McCain and I have real differences on this issue. Senator McCain’s been eager to share some of the details of his health care plan, but not all of them. It’s like those ads for prescription drugs. You know, they start off, everybody’s running in the fields and everybody’s happy and then there’s the little fine print that says, you know, side effects may include. Now, first of all, we found out that Senator McCain wants to pay for his plan by taxing your health care benefits for the first time in history. Just like George Bush. That was bad enough. But ‘The Wall Street Journal’ recently reported that it was actually worse than we thought. It turns out Senator McCain would pay for part of his plan by making drastic cuts in Medicare. $882 billion worth. $882 billion in Medicare cuts to pay for an ill-conceived, badly thought through health care plan that won’t provide more health care to people. Even though Medicare’s already facing a looming shortfall. Now, this should come as no surprise. It’s entirely consistent with Senator McCain’s record during his 26 years in Congress, where time and again he’s opposed Medicare. In fact, Senator McCain has voted against protecting Medicare 40 times. Forty times he’s failed to stand up for Medicare. So what would Senator McCain’s cuts mean for Medicare at a time when more and more Americans are relying on it? It would mean a cut of more than 20 percent in Medicare benefits next year. If you count on Medicare, it would mean fewer places to get care and less freedom to choose your own doctors. You’ll pay more for your drugs. You’ll receive fewer services. You’ll get lower quality care. I don’t think that’s right. In fact, it ain’t right.” (Senator Barack Obama, Remarks, Roanoke, VA, 10/17/08)

Ain’t it? It sounds all right now. In fact, it sounds like Obama administration policy.

But I guess his plan to reform health care, like his plan to restructure the finance system, and his plan to re-make Big Auto, and his plan to refinance mortgages, and his plan to re-start the economy, and his plan to reengage with Iran, and his plan to lead the UN to polity and civility, and his plan to deal with North Korea—I guess all those plans are subject to change without notice.

“These companies — and this industry — must ultimately stand on their own, not as wards of the state,” Obama said at the White House.

Obama spoke after the White House forced GM CEO and Chairman Rick Wagoner to step down. The president said the move was not a “condemnation” of the chairman — rather a “recognition that it will take a new vision and new direction to create the GM of the future.”

He said his interest lies in giving the company the opportunity to make “much-needed changes” so that it can emerge profitable and competitive.

“Let me be clear. The United States government has no interest in running GM. We have no intention of running GM,” Obama said.

President Barack Obama pushed General Motors Corp. into bankruptcy on Monday and said it was part of a “viable, achievable plan that will give this iconic company a chance to rise again.”

Obama said he hoped the firm would emerge quickly from bankruptcy court, and said the government was ready to commit an additional $30 billion to help the company get on its feet.

He said the government would own 60 percent of the new GM — much as it has taken part ownership of Chrysler, banks and other corporations in recent months — and acknowledged that could prove controversial with some.

Seeking to ease those concerns, Obama said, “What I am not doing, what I have no interest in doing, is running GM.”

Obama sought to reassure Americans about the government’s role, saying the breathtaking plan – injecting a fresh $30.1 billion in loans to GM in return for a 60% stake and the right to reconfigure its board of directors – was the only way to ensure GM’s survival while protecting federal money.

The Obama administration asked the U.S. Supreme Court Friday to reject a request for a hearing from 17 Chinese Muslims currently being held at Guantanamo Bay Naval Base, arguing they have no right to come to America despite a district judge’s orders last Fall that they immediately be brought to the U.S. and released.

“Petitioners are free to return to their home country, but they understandably do not wish to do so, because they fear inhumane treatment there,” reads the filing, signed by US Solicitor General Elena Kagan, Assistant Attorney General Tony West, and other Justice Department officials. “Petitioners are also free to go to any other country that is willing to accept them.”

But why should they wish to leave? They’ve never had it so good:

“In contrast to individuals currently detained as enemies under the laws of war, petitioners are being housed under relatively unrestrictive conditions, given the status of Guantanamo Bay as a United States military base,” Kagan writes, saying they are “in special communal housing with access to all areas of their camp, including an outdoor recreation space and picnic area.” They “sleep in an air-conditioned bunk house and have the use of an activity room equipped with various recreational items, including a television with VCR and DVD players, a stereo system, and sports equipment.”

Who has a VCR anymore? The barbarity!

So not only does B-HO adopt Bush’s policy on the Uighurs—but now Gitmo ain’t so bad after all. Go figure.

The Obama administration insists it has no obligation to provide access to a top secret document in a [warrantless] wiretapping case, setting up a showdown next week with the judge who ordered it released. …

The judge has ordered department lawyers to appear before his court Wednesday to make the case why he should not award damages to the now-defunct Oregon chapter of the Al-Haramain Islamic Foundation. That group is challenging the wiretapping program.

In its response, the department said that in this case “disclosure of classified information–even under protective order–would create intolerable risks to national security.”

The filing said President Barack Obama has authorized access to classified information on a “need-to-know” basis and argued that the government “cannot be sanctioned for its determination that plaintiffs do not have a need to know classified information.”

Another judge told to go pound sand. Must be one of those white male judges.

With the election of President Obama, environmentalists had expected to see the end of the “Appalachian apocalypse,” their name for exposing coal deposits by blowing the tops off whole mountains.

But in recent weeks, the administration has quietly made a decision to open the way for at least two dozen more mountaintop removals.

In a letter this month to a coal ally, Rep. Nick J. Rahall II (D-W.Va.), the Environmental Protection Agency said it would not block dozens of “surface mining” projects. The list included some controversial mountaintop mines.

The industry says the practice of using explosives to blast away a peak is safer and more efficient than traditional shaft mining. But critics say the process scars the landscape and dumps tons of waste — some of it toxic — into streams and valleys.

The administration’s decision is not the final word on the projects or the future of mountaintop removal. But the letter, coupled with the light it sheds on relations between the mining industry and the Obama White House, has disappointed environmentalists. Some say they feel betrayed by a president they thought would end or sharply limit the practice.

I’m afraid even my head is about to explode: I thought coal was bad; I thought coal was dirty; but Obama is willing to blow up whole mountain ranges to get more of it.

Well, that’s what China’s doing (I’ll report on that later today or tomorrow). Maybe the president decided there was no point in being a green sap when China was going black.

Should we start a flip-flop pool? What’s the next policy to go under the bus?

Barack Obama suggested last night that removing Osama bin Laden from the battlefield was no longer essential and that America’s security goals could be achieved merely by keeping al-Qaeda “on the run”.

“My preference obviously would be to capture or kill him,” he said. “But if we have so tightened the noose that he’s in a cave somewhere and can’t even communicate with his operatives then we will meet our goal of protecting America.”

His comments, in a CBS interview, represent a significant watering down of the “dead or alive” policy pursued by President Bush since the terror attacks of September 11, 2001. They also appear to contradict Mr Obama’s own statements made in the election campaign.

As recently as October 7, in a presidential debate, Mr Obama said: “We will kill bin Laden. We will crush al-Qaeda. That has to be our biggest national security priority.”

This is not the Barack Obama we knew. But then, maybe Osama wasn’t the Osama he knew.

Oh, and SACLU notes that this report appeared in the foreign press, as the domestic variety has no interest in covering anything remotely embarrassing to

Well, my guess is once they get here and they’re faced with the same problems we deal with every day, that they will appreciate some of the things we’ve put in place. We did not exceed our constitutional authority as some have suggested, but we — the President believes, I believe — very deeply in a strong executive, and I think that’s essential in this day and age, and I think the Obama administration is not likely to cede that authority back to the Congress. I think they’ll find that, given the challenge they face, they’ll need all the authority they can muster.

Too strong? Okay, you tell me how you’d describe Barack Obama’s treacherousseditious community organizing behavior in Iraq (remembering that, despite appearances, he did not visit Iraq, Germany, etc. as President, but only as candidate for the office):

WHILE campaigning in public for a speedy withdrawal of US troops from Iraq, Sen. Barack Obama has tried in private to persuade Iraqi leaders to delay an agreement on a draw-down of the American military presence.

According to Iraqi Foreign Minister Hoshyar Zebari, Obama made his demand for delay a key theme of his discussions with Iraqi leaders in Baghdad in July.

“He asked why we were not prepared to delay an agreement until after the US elections and the formation of a new administration in Washington,” Zebari said in an interview.

Obama insisted that Congress should be involved in negotiations on the status of US troops – and that it was in the interests of both sides not to have an agreement negotiated by the Bush administration in its “state of weakness and political confusion.”

“However, as an Iraqi, I prefer to have a security agreement that regulates the activities of foreign troops, rather than keeping the matter open.” Zebari says.

Though Obama claims the US presence is “illegal,” he suddenly remembered that Americans troops were in Iraq within the legal framework of a UN mandate. His advice was that, rather than reach an accord with the “weakened Bush administration,” Iraq should seek an extension of the UN mandate.

While in Iraq, Obama also tried to persuade the US commanders, including Gen. David Petraeus, to suggest a “realistic withdrawal date.” They declined.

Obama has made many contradictory statements with regard to Iraq. His latest position is that US combat troops should be out by 2010. Yet his effort to delay an agreement would make that withdrawal deadline impossible to meet.

He’s not naive. He’s not misguided. He’s a cold, calculating schemer. Who wants to be commander-in-chief. God help us.

He swore up and down that it didn’t mean anything sexist at all. Then he went on Letterman and said this:

“Keep in mind, technically, had I meant it this way, [Palin] would be the lipstick. The failed policies of John McCain would be the pig, just following the logic of this illogical situation,” Obama said.

I’m getting whiplash trying to follow this guy. He is a moron. Here’s what he was saying earlier today

Obama, not surprisingly, would have none of that. This is how he explained what he said: “I’m talking about John McCain’s economic policies. I say this is more of the same. You can put lipstick on a pig, but it’s still a pig. And suddenly they say, ‘Oh, you must be talking about the governor of Alaska.’”

Not so, he said. Indeed, he called the insistence that he was none-too-charitably referring to Palin part of the “lies and phony outrage and ‘Swift boat’ politics” that mark Republican campaign tactics.

He can’t keep his lies straight. Bad sign. I’m quite sure that as President, his governing style will involve a lot of lying. He needs to learn to keep them straight.

Mr. Stephanopoulos: “So even if we’re in a recession next January, you come into office, you’ll still go through with your tax increases?”

Senator Obama: “No, no, no, no, no. What I’ve said, George, is that even if we’re still in a recession, I’m going to go through with my tax cuts. That’s my priority.” [notice how many times he is quoted with What I said was... or no, no, no, no... or let's go over this again..? ed.]

Mr. Stephanopoulos: “But not the increases?”

Senator Obama: “I think we’ve got to take a look and see where the economy is. The economy is weak right now. The news with Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae, I think, along with the unemployment numbers indicates that we’re fragile. I want to accelerate those tax cuts through a second stimulus package, get more money into the pockets of ordinary Americans, see if we can stabilize the housing market, and then we’re going to have to reevaluate at the beginning of the year to see what kind of hole we’re in.”

The media isn’t covering it much, presumably because his base will be furious. They want to punish “the rich”.

Can somebody clarify exactly what are the differences between Obama’s positions and those of President Bush? Taxes? Iraq? FISA? Iran? Campaign spending… well Bush isn’t running a campaign, so that isn’t fair. I just tossed it in because Obama lied about it.

I agree with the President’s decision to release oil from the Strategic Petroleum Reserve to help replenish supply shortages resulting from Hurricane Katrina. … However, I do believe that this tragedy makes it very clear that that the reserve should only be used in the event of an emergency, and that we shouldn’t be tapping the reserve to provide a small, short-term decrease in gas prices.

And again last month:

I do not believe that we should use the strategic oil reserves at this point. I have said and, in fact, supported a congressional resolution that said that we should suspend putting more oil into the strategic oil reserve, but the strategic oil reserve, I think, has to be reserved for a genuine emergency.

In an apparent policy shift, Barack Obama will call for the tapping of the strategic petroleum reserves Monday, backing a position taken by House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and other Democratic leaders.

…

“Sen. Obama has looked at this issue, he recognizes that Americans are suffering, that we have a unique situation with rising gas prices and this is one occasion where we need to look at this strategically and he made the decision that we need to tap the strategic petroleum reserves.”

I guess we know what the emergency was—poll numbers in free fall.

Thank you, Barack Obama, for making a hot and sticky summer one of the funniest periods of my life. I’ll remember you when you’re gone.